Jump to content

UB-32 Rocket Launcher


Recommended Posts

With the Hind approaching with the possibility of fitting the UB-32 rocket launcher, is there any chance this will be included for fitment to the Mi-8 as well?

For no other reason than the Hip would look sick AF with 6 UB-32 launchers fitted! (192 rockets wouldn't hurt either) :thumbup:

UB-32.thumb.jpg.b10f246eb85e535cca79a5cb15eeccc8.jpg

  • Like 4

Asus Maximus VIII Hero Alpha| i7-6700K @ 4.60GHz | nVidia GTX 1080ti Strix OC 11GB @ 2075MHz| 16GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3200Mhz DDR4 CL14 |

Samsung 950 PRO 512GB M.2 SSD | Corsair Force LE 480GB SSD | Windows 10 64-Bit | TM Warthog with FSSB R3 Lighting Base | VKB Gunfighter Pro + MCG | TM MFD's | Oculus Rift S | Jetseat FSE

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

System Specs: AMD Ryzen 5 3600, RX 6900 XT, 64GB RAM // Tobsen CM Kollektiv, VPC CM3 Throttle, VPC WarBRD Rudder Pedals, VPC T-50 CM2 + WarBRD Base  VR: HP Reverb G2

Helis: UH-1H / KA-50 3 / Mi-8 / Mi-24P / SA-342 / AH-64D  Jets: F-5E / F-14A/B / F/A-18C / MC-2000 / A-10C II / AV-8B / AJS 37 / MIG-21bis  / F-16C / F-15E / F-4E (soon)  WWII: Spitfire / WWII Assets Pack

Tech.: Combined Arms / NS430 / Supercarrier   Maps:  Nevada / Persian Gulf / Normandie / Syria / South Atlantic  Waiting for:  BO-105 / OH 58D / CH-47 Chinook / G.91R / Tornado IDS / A-7E Corsair II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

pylon(1, 0, 0.4, -0.95, -3.26,

{

use_full_connector_position = true,

},

{

 

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_CM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OFP2" },

{ CLSID = "{6A4B9E69-64FE-439a-9163-3A87FB6A4D81}" },

 

{ CLSID = "{FB3CE165-BF07-4979-887C-92B87F13276B}" },

{ CLSID = "{0511E528-EA28-4caf-A212-00D1408DF10A}" },

{ CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" },

{ CLSID = "GUV_VOG"},

{ CLSID = "{637334E4-AB5A-47C0-83A6-51B7F1DF3CD5}" }, --UB32 with S5 rockets

{ CLSID = "{B99EE8A8-99BC-4a8d-89AC-A26831920DCE}" }, --FuelTank

 

 

 

screen14.png

 

 

screen15.png

 

 

screen16.png


Edited by GunfighterSIX

HHC, 229th AHB, 1st Cav Div

http://1stcavdiv.conceptbb.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

pylon(1, 0, 0.4, -0.95, -3.26,

{

use_full_connector_position = true,

},

{

 

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_CM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OFP2" },

{ CLSID = "{6A4B9E69-64FE-439a-9163-3A87FB6A4D81}" },

 

{ CLSID = "{FB3CE165-BF07-4979-887C-92B87F13276B}" },

{ CLSID = "{0511E528-EA28-4caf-A212-00D1408DF10A}" },

{ CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" },

{ CLSID = "GUV_VOG"},

{ CLSID = "{637334E4-AB5A-47C0-83A6-51B7F1DF3CD5}" }, --UB32 with S5 rockets

{ CLSID = "{B99EE8A8-99BC-4a8d-89AC-A26831920DCE}" }, --FuelTank

 

 

 

screen14.png

 

 

screen15.png

 

 

screen16.png

It will break IC? I think the answer is yes, but better to ask first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see them on the Mi-8 as well...but if I hold my breath for ED/Belsimtek to add them...I'll be all shades of purple!

 

Since the onset of piracy of their modules...there approach is to ruin it for (punish) the masses

Marvin "Cactus" Palmer

 

DCS:World 2.5(ob)

Gigabyte Z390 Designare i7-9700K (4.6GHz), 32Gb RAM (3600MHz), GTX2070, 40" 1080p Monitor, TM Warthog, Saitek Rudder pedals,TM Cougar MFD, and an ipad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the onset of piracy of their modules...there approach is to ruin it for (punish) the masses

 

What you mean?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Integrity check isn’t about piracy, it’s about making multiplayer fair. If you could change your aircraft to whatever you wanted how would you regulate that?

Also servers have the option to turn it off if they want to use mods

 

 

Modules: A10C, F5, F14, F16, F18, F86, AV8B, UH1, Mi8, Ka50, FC3, Supercarrier, CA, P47, P51

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

screen14.png

 

 

screen15.png

 

 

screen16.png

 

Just a little suggestion, but if you get the UB-32 launchers off the L-39C/ZA they're HQ models. Looks way way better, i dont know how to upload screenshots here, but i do have a picture of them on my livery pack. If you look at the third image you can see them on the helicopter. Its a bit weird these were never added to the module since the high quality models of the rocket launcher is available in the game, it wouldn't ruin the polish of the module as the LQ UB-32 launcher would.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2831505/

 

GYLDvZo


Edited by OfficerAMR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little suggestion, but if you get the UB-32 launchers off the L-39C/ZA they're HQ models. Looks way way better, i dont know how to upload screenshots here, but i do have a picture of them on my livery pack. If you look at the third image you can see them on the helicopter. Its a bit weird these were never added to the module since the high quality models of the rocket launcher is available in the game, it wouldn't ruin the polish of the module as the LQ UB-32 launcher would.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2831505/

Can you upload the .lua file, whit the description were to put it, plz?

i7 8700k@4.7, 1080ti, DDR4 32GB, 2x SSD , HD 2TB, W10, ASUS 27", TrackIr5, TMWH, X-56, GProR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be important if we get Syrian Mi-8, they didn’t have S-8 in the beginning of war, only S-5. I think they didn’t get S-8 until 2015, and is credited as pretty big reason the SyAAF got more effective during that year

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

In game terms s5 rockets I think have a niche. You get lots more when compared to s8. 

This increases direct hit chance on vehicles. And light vehicles like mtlb btr80 still get one shot by these little rockets. Pods are also lighter.

S8 can one shot heavy IFV like Bradley aav7 warrior bmp3 and deal a LOT more damage to the tanks. 

 

Tl Dr s5 would make the best weapon against light apcs on a hip. Guv 12.7 is good too but at closer ranges and with less damage. Sometimes not penetrating. 

27.09.2020 в 06:51, CoBlue сказал:

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

Screen_200927_053650.thumb.png.52fd3369fefd166f5a21eab529f49602.png

Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar 4 \u041a\u0431 · 67 скачиваний

What to do with the file? Do you have a mod ready? 


Edited by Sobakopes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 year later...

I tried to make this mod recently but they did something that affects only mi-8 and there is no such file anywhere or even the code that was in it, it's probably in some dll now, I don't understand why they blocked it. It will probably be like with black shark, i.e. a paid upgrade

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been raised again and again, and as always, the answer is no. If to stay true to the version that ED is replicating here, USSR, there were no S-5´s mounted on this version. By that time, S-5´s were used up/sold to foreign countries, as such, S-8 were the new standard on the block. For some, it might seem like a "small" addition, however as to reality-factor, it's plain wrong. Realism of the module first (never mind the different skins, those are just "artistic"), then everything else.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

This topic has been raised again and again, and as always, the answer is no. If to stay true to the version that ED is replicating here, USSR, there were no S-5´s mounted on this version. By that time, S-5´s were used up/sold to foreign countries, as such, S-8 were the new standard on the block. For some, it might seem like a "small" addition, however as to reality-factor, it's plain wrong. Realism of the module first (never mind the different skins, those are just "artistic"), then everything else.

To be honest, I always find that argument to be in so much of a grey area.

Has this particular version officially carried S-5 rockets? No, it hasn't, you do have a point there. But on the other hand: the previous version has and the pylon, as far as I'm aware, hasn't changed one bit. It would be a much clearer cut case if the possibility of carrying these pods had been removed for some technical reason, but as I understand the whole reason they were never carried is because Russia ran out of S-5 rocket pods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russians didn´t run out of rocket pods, rather, transitioned to the new standard (S-8). S-5´s proved to have too small of a explosive charge in Afghanistan, thus, a bigger rocket (S-8) was promoted during the later years and in the aftermath. The army aviation simply did not want them anymore, after the reports stemming from Afghanistan. Even though it could technically carry it (the wiring is the same as for S-8), I still stand by the fact that modules should be representative of a specific airframe (even though much of the info surrounding a module is often gathered from multiple aircraft, think of it as a puzzle game). There have been other modules that have taken certain liberties, however those, have either been reverted, or often heavily criticized by us purists (NVG in Mi-24 (this version), Mi-8 not so much as a few early ones have been testing NVG-use before proper cockpit lightning adjusted for NVG). Again, I get the wish, especially since everything is already there, however it makes more sense that the simulator remains true to its nature.

 

Hopefully projects like Ka-50 BS3 remain reserved for "testbeds" at most. 3-wing pylon was tested on Ka-50, however with different firing-system that accepted a third pylon. Same with President-S (only DIRCM for us), whereas the system is partly there, it being displayed on Abris is fantasy (could be done IRL I´m sure, but nothing proves it ever was). Igla-V on Ka50 is in itself pure fantasy, the only thing ever being considered IRL was an R-60 missile, much in the same manner as on Mi-24. Again, the explanation was that Ka-50 was a testbed (which saw very limited service), and as such, multiple Ka-50´s in different configurations were baked into one, plus some "minor" liberties. Let´s hope ED doesn´t go that way any further, as such "liberties" often result in more confusion than not. The pride of this simulator is really the authenticity of it, besides physics, system depth, etc... In absolutely most of the scenarios where the Mi-8 (our version) was used, the S-8 was as well. The very early ones, while having S-5, also had weaker engines, different blades, etc. Even if you had the proper weaponry for the scenario, you would have an improper Mi-8 (more capable one) than the original airframe. As such, it would always be unrealistic in one way or the other.


Edited by zerO_crash
  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zerO_crash said:

 Even though it could technically carry it (the wiring is the same as for S-8), I still stand by the fact that modules should be representative of a specific airframe (even though much of the info surrounding a module is often gathered from multiple aircraft, think of it as a puzzle game).

Maybe that exactly is the point. Whether one prefers the purist authenticity of a specific airframe or a slightly broader approach to representing a type. Probably what we slightly disagree on. Personally I feel that simulating a single specific aircraft without much leeway exacerbates the 'spotty' nature of DCS, which is that oftentimes modules are scattered all over the place with hardly ever having the assets to properly match them in a scenario - but I admit that that is just my opinion.

I definitely agree that the recent developments in Ka-50 have gotten a bit out of hand at any rate with the experimental features and the modelling after prototypes. I realise that the Ka-50 itself is a bit of a rare helicopter, but then ED sure doesn't do things a favour by claiming this BS3 version to be 'representative'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...